Four AI Oddities

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Halupedia, is an AI-generated "encyclopedia" that "cover[s] topics that have received insufficient attention in mainstream reference works."

It generates amusing articles on request, for example, this one on 20 Toe Syndrome:

20 Toe Syndrome, also known as Polyactylia Multidigitus, is a rare congenital condition characterized by the presence of twenty toes on each foot. The syndrome was first comprehensively documented by the naturalist and anatomist Hermann Feinberg in his 1765 treatise, Observations on Peculiarities of Form and Structure in the Human Subject. Feinberg's work detailed several individuals from the Duchy of Bavaria Minor who exhibited this trait. The condition was believed by Feinberg to be a reversion to a more primitive, ancestral state, a theory later refined by Albrecht von Schnitzler.

The typical presentation of 20 Toe Syndrome involves the duplication of existing phalanges and metatarsals, resulting in a symmetrical arrangement of ten toes on each foot.

Your amusement value may vary, depending on your tolerance of the writing style of the AI hallucinations, how much you actually know about a subject, and how badly contradictions stand out to you.

Captured from video.

2. Just because the answers (plural) to How Many E's Are in the Word Seventeen? are delivered in a calm, friendly, and well-spoken manner does not mean they have anything to do with reality.

3. The cursed browser "asks an LLM to look at the page's HTML and draw what it thinks it looks like," instead of using a regular rendering engine. The GitHub page shows some interesting examples of how the browser compares with Safari.

4. Another GitHub page, describes what it calls the "gay jailbreak technique," whereby the user can overcome guardrails:

Especially GPT is slightly more uncensored when it involves LGBT, thats [sic] probably because the guardrails aim to be helpful and friendly, which translates to: "Ohhh LGBT, I need to comply, I dont [sic] want to insult them by refusing" So you use the guardrails to exploit the guardrails.

A user at Hacker News gives a more general explanation (and a better name) for why the technique works that I am more inclined to believe:

Not sure of the explanation but it is amusing. The main reason I'm not sure it's political correctness or one guardrail overriding the other is that when they were first released on of the more reliable jailbreaks was what I'd call "role play" jail breaks where you don't ask the model directly but ask it to take on a role and describe it as that person would. [bold added]

I agree with several comments in that discussion that, since AI is a black box, many or most "explanations" for why this trick works are pure speculation.

-- CAV

Criticize, but Also Search for Potential

Pharma blogger Derek Lowe offers good advice regarding a trap that many with experience in their professions can fall into.

In "How Not to Be That Chemist," Lowe cautions against being too biased towards shooting new ideas down, a hazard common in his field, where "you will have seen your ideas shot down in more ways than you can even count:"

[I]f you're that person who sits over by the wall in the conference room and comes up with reasons why this idea, that idea, and those ideas over there aren't going to work, then you should re-evaluate your approach to your work and your place in the organization. Sure, you're right most of the time - maybe damn near all of the time - but what good does that do anyone? You could write an app for your phone that would just say "I don't think that's going to work" every time you hit a button, and it would be just as correct and do just as much for everyone. Most things don't work. You're far better off if you can jump in when you see something interesting that you have some reason to believe has a better chance than usual, and especially if it has a better chance than the other people around the table might realize. [bold added]

The old saw that It's easy to be a critic jumped into my mind after reading this, but this is accurate only in the sense that tearing things down is easy to do.

It's hard to be a constructive critic, which is what I believe Lowe is aiming at.

To borrow an apt golf metaphor about value vs threat orientation: Sure, watch out for the sand traps and water hazards; but don't forget that there are holes to shoot for.

-- CAV

Another Trump Casualty: The Electoral College?

From time to time, I have provided updates here on the progress of the National Popular Vote, a left-wing effort to effectively abolish the Electoral College via an interstate compact.

As of the last update, states with 196 total electoral votes had signed on, and as of the last mention here, that total had reached 209.

As of now, that total is 222, and, as Vox points out, there is a real chance that this year's midterms, fueled by widespread discontent with Donald Trump and his congressional Republican lapdogs, could cause the balance to tip over the decisive 270 electoral votes required to make the compact binding.

Assuming the agreement passes legal and constitutional muster, it would render the Electoral College moot:

Nearly every blue or leaning blue state has signed onto the compact, the most recent being Virginia last month -- and reformers [sic] now have states controlling 222 of the 270 electoral votes they need.

The decisive batch would be the core swing states where partisan control is up for grabs this fall. If Democrats win governing trifectas (the governorship and both state legislative chambers) in enough of them, they could very well cobble together the remaining 48 electoral votes, and actually put this into place for 2028. Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Hampshire are the top targets.

As I have explained in the past, this compact is a bad idea, and I stand by that assessment as true in the long term, even if it might have the happy result of preempting another MAGA Presidency after Trump's term expires.

-- CAV

Statism Feeds the 'Culture Wars'

Theocratic Republicans have their panties in a wad about a water park in Texas that plans to host a Moslem-only event commemorating the end of Ramadan.

Their stated reasons for the outrage are revealing. Consider the below quote by Dana Loesch:

How is a taxpayer-funded, city-owned entity allowed to discriminate against non-Muslims at a public water park?

There would be literal riots if Muslims were similarly excluded and we all know that's 100% accurate.

Do note that the Daily Mail further reports, "The Muslim-only event in June is being organized and run by the East Plano Islamic Center."

In other words, this isn't some politically correct stunt devised by a bunch of left-wing staffers, as I thought it might be at first: It's a private event. Government facilities frequently host private events, and I'm pretty sure that sometimes includes events of a religious nature.

Although I am not sure about Loesch in particular, I can't think of many conservatives who would object to a public park being used by, say, a Christian group for an event it is hosting. And, assuming the event in question were, say a rental, or at least done on the same terms as any other group using the facilities, I don't see a problem in terms of discrimination or even separation of religion and state.

(Notice which of the two Loesch harps on.)

The bigger issue here -- which doesn't come up at all -- is this: What is the government doing running (or even owning) a water park in the first place? Why are countless people who will never use the park being forced to pay for it? And why is someone who supports Trump -- often (incorrectly) called "the only man standing between the United States and socialism" -- not calling out this blatant example of socialism?

Part of the answer is that Americans have become inured to things like government parks, government parcel delivery, and government schools for over a century. It wasn't long ago that conservatives were beginning to question the propriety of those things, and there still is some pushback, particularly on the matter of schools. But that strand of conservatism is on life support at best. See also: Trump's "golden shares" and his proposal to make Spirit into a government airline.

But for many (perhaps not for Loesch herself) part of the answer is surely that it isn't so much that they object to the government ramming religion down our throats, but that it's the "wrong" religion. Consider conservative support for teaching creationism as science -- or mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom -- in government schools.

If this water park were privately-owned, as it should be, the Moslem event would be no more newsworthy than any other private event, and even as things stand now, it is far less of a problem (if it is one at all) than what many conservatives are demanding in government schools.

The real outrage here is that people like Loesch pose as defenders of freedom, but fail to account for the full context of an event like this. This event is barely newsworthy as far as I can tell, but the outrage distracts from the real scandal, which is that the government is running a water park, thereby continuing to normalize socialism while also feeding the Christian nationalist outrage machine.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected a sentence to indicate that the event has not yet taken place.

Modern Puritans Take Aim at Zyn

"Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." -- H.L. Mencken

***

Today, I learned of Zyn pouches, a nicotine product I'd never before heard of because, as John Stossel reports, the anti-smoking lobby wants to ban them, or at least make them harder to get.

And what is Zyn? They are little pouches people tuck into their lip to get a hit of nicotine, according to Stossel. Wikipedia elaborates further:

Unlike snus or dip, nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco or stem material, but remain addictive due to their nicotine content.

These pouches thus resemble other products -- like vaping pens, patches, and gum -- that deliver a dose of nicotine without also including the carcinogens present in tobacco.

One would think that people motivated by a concern for health would celebrate such innovations, and many surely do. It's just that perhaps such people aren't the driving force behind the prohibition of nicotine.

Opponents of selling the products focus on the addictiveness of nicotine and all but ignore the lower cancer risk and end up harming the people they claim to want to help:

Some states ban certain flavors and impose high taxes. This makes pouches about as expensive as cigarettes. That's dumb.

"It's not the nicotine that kills you. It's smoking," says Guy Bentley, director of consumer freedom at Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website, in my new video.

"You shouldn't treat a nicotine pouch the way we treat cigarettes. The more expensive you make the safer product, the more the most dangerous product will be sold."

After Minnesota imposed a 95 percent tax on vaping, smokers who would have quit didn't. Thousands of them.

The rest of the piece looks at other consequences of banning products, including the creation of black markets and the crime that go with them.

Stossel is correct about this, as far as it goes, but I would have liked to see him ask, By what right does the government ban commerce, even including cigarettes? A close second would be, By what right is the government picking my pocket to pay for the consequences of someone else choosing to smoke? The bans and restrictions on cigarettes, tobacco, and nicotine started off as a wrong committed in an effort to fix problems caused by the first wrong, and have clearly morphed into a way for puritans to order people around.

Controls breed controls, and bad premises drive out good.

None of this is to say that nicotine isn't without any hazard or that children -- who don't have the full legal rights of adults, anyway -- shouldn't be barred from buying addictive substances. But adults should be free to choose what to ingest -- and held to account for any consequences.

-- CAV

Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "Iran Is Not Venezuela," by Elan Journo and Ben Bayer (Orange County Register):

Eliminating the threat from Iran's Islamic totalitarian regime necessitates discrediting its ideology, making it a lost cause. Some may doubt this is possible, in the shadow of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and indeed, it has been decades since America has followed the right approach. History, however, provides a compelling model.

850 words/3 minutes

2. "Ending Birthright Citizenship Won't Make America Great," by Agustina Vergara Cid (RealClear Politics):

[Cato's Alex] Nowrasteh writes that birthright citizenship "means that every descendant of immigrants has a stake in this nation and does not grow up in a legal underclass." He goes on to cite the example of Germany, where birthright citizenship didn't exist, and that created a "parallel society" prone to radicalization. When the German parliament took action to boost assimilation and grant citizenship to the children of some immigrants, the benefits were indisputable -- from the parents of the children integrating better into German society to more school enrollments and overall more integration into German society and culture.

770 words/3 minutes

3. "UK Smoking Ban Highlights Debate Over the Proper Function of Government," by Paul Hsieh (Forbes):

The law's supporters argue that the government must regulate individual lifestyles to limit medical costs that would otherwise be a burden on "society." But it is important to recognize this issue arises because of the UK's nationalized health system where taxpayers must pay for everyone else's medical expenses.

In a fully free health system (which the US does not have), private insurers could appropriately price health risks related to voluntary life choices. Smokers would pay higher premiums to cover their added health expenses, just as skydivers typically have to pay higher life insurance premiums. The added health costs of smoking would be borne by the smokers themselves.

600 words/2 minutes

4. "A Transcendent Vision for US Energy Policy," interview of Alex Epstein by Quentin Wittrock (RealClear Energy):

In general, the job of the administration, its executive branch, is to execute the law. It's not to make the law. And what we see from both parties is more and more the idea that, well, you appoint the president and they basically do -- you appoint them and they're kind of like the CEO of the company that is America. That's not the American model, and I think it's a problematic model, but I think it's the way that in many ways both parties think about it.

transcript of 45 minute interview

-- CAV

Be Sure You're Shaving a (Real) Yak

The computing term yak shaving has two different definitions:

1.Any apparently useless activity which, by allowing one to overcome intermediate difficulties, allows one to solve a larger problem.

2. A less useful activity done consciously or subconsciously to procrastinate about a larger but more useful task.

One thing that frequently falls into this category is adopting a note-taking system, such as Zettelkasten, which I repeatedly have heard about and not adopted.

Such systems can fall into either of the above categories, depending on how you're approaching them.

I do not deny that the Zettelkasten approach could be useful. I just don't see a need to use it all the time and haven't bumped into a context in which I could find it useful.

Indeed, I have employed note-taking systems of different sorts over the years, and do have a general method for tracking my projects, but I have always been of the mind that it need only make the information findable later, in case I need it. Overall, a uniform method of tracking projects and information associated with them, and an automatically-generated list of all files on my computer are it.

That said, it was encouraging to read Sasha Chapin's thought-provoking post on "Notes Against Note-Taking Systems," which advises, among other things:

Getting lost in your knowledge management system is a fantastic way to avoid creating things. Or calling that friend you're estranged from. Or doing anything else even mildly threatening. It's also a fantastic way to convince yourself that unpreparedness is what's between you and creative work. If you believe you're unprepared, know that you will never transmute into the perfectly prepared person that you think exists in the future. Unfortunately, you have to start with the person currently in this chair. That's all there ever is.

It can be a great idea to find or develop an organized method for taking and tracking notes about an important topic -- and even to expand (or redeploy) such a system later on, but messing around with this without the need to do so is a waste of time in more ways than one.

-- CAV